Share this:

Another week, another flip-flop from the White House over its approach to War on Terror detainees — and in a good way.

This time, the Obama administration is set to revive a system of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

Back in January, the president made a big show of suspending all Gitmo trials, pending a review of the commission system — purportedly to make a clean break with Bush-era policies.

He could hardly have done otherwise, given his over-the-top campaign rhetoric branding Gitmo a violation of America’s “values.”

Well, what a difference 100 days make.

Doubtless, Obama’s review made him face the same thorny realities the Bush folks had been wrestling with for years — namely, that America’s criminal-justice system is especially ill-suited to dealing with unconventional combatants.

In particular, civilian rules of evidence would often require the admission of crucial, yet sensitive, classified evidence — something the intelligence agencies are understandably reluctant to release.

The president’s erstwhile lefty allies, of course, are already crying foul over the move: The ACLU is even threatening to sue to stop the tribunals.

But what is undoubtedly really worrying the left is that, when it comes to vital matters of national security, Obama is actually hewing closely to the Bush line:

* Along with reviving tribunals, the Justice Department is looking to detain some terror suspects indefinitely — even when Gitmo is closed.

* Citing national security, Obama announced last week that he will challenge a federal judge’s order to release photos showing alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan — reversing an earlier decision on the photos.

* The Obama Justice Department is supporting its Bush-era predecessors’ argument that a lawsuit by ex-CIA detainees should be shut down based on the doctrine of “state secrets.”

* And the White House has adopted Bush administration legal arguments for the authority to continue warrantless wiretapping.

Yes, the president is guilty of rhetorical excess in his need to “apologize” for the allegedly arrogant US foreign policy of recent years.

But when it comes to the concrete decisions required to keep the country safe, he’s shown a welcome ability to jettison the less-temperate rhetoric of his presidential campaign.

His left-wing base may not like it, but the American people will thank him for decisions that will protect the nation.